Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-16-2003 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING January 16, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Merritt, and Mr. Trias. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Matthes (Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant Community Development Director; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman McCurdy called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold tonight. The meeting will progress in the following manner: The Chair will call each item. Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Board. Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has specific questions. The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN: Agenda Item # 2 was heard first. Then Agenda Items # 6, 3,4,5, 7 & 8 were heard. Agenda Item # 1 was heard last. The minutes of that item are presented here for consistency with the published agenda. Mr. Hearn stated that the present Chairman has done a fantastic job but the Board of County Mr. Lounds stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn and that the current chairman has done an outstanding job over the past few years. Mr. Lounds made a motion to elect Mr. Ed Merritt to serve as the Chairman for the Planning and Zoning Commission because of his age, time served on the committee, and for Mr. McCurdy to remain serving as Vice-Chairman. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins, with discussion. Mr. Akins stated that he would like to confirm that the nomination was for both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman positions. Mr. Lounds stated it was a motion that included both, if permissible. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt it would have been more appropriate for Mr. McCurdy to move into the position of Chairman because the Board of County Commissioners moves their Vice- Chairman to serve as Chairman when they make their yearly changes. He also stated that he would have preferred Mr. Merritt serve as Vice-Chairman instead. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to elect Mr. Ed Merritt to serve as the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission and for Mr. McCurdy to remain serving as Vice-Chairman. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: MEETING MINUTES November 21, 2002: Mr. Hearn made a motion for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 3: ROBERT FENDER FILE NO. PA-02-005: Robert Fender Mr. Dennis Murphy, stated that Agenda Items # 3 & 4 were the applications of for a Change in Future Land Use Classification from RU (Residential, Urban) and COM (Commercial) to COM (Commercial) and also for a Change in Zoning from the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial, General) Zoning Districts to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. He advised that staff was requesting this item, with th consent, be continued until the February 20, 2003, meeting. He continued that the reason for the request was that back in 1990 the county acquired some right-of-way from this property for intersection improvements that were being done. He stated that as a part of the acquisition the county agreed to initiate a rezoning for some additional land to give the parcel back the original square footage. He advised that the applicant had some concerns that this was never done, but the county maps show that it was done. He continued that staff would like to do some further research to re- staff was requesting these two applications be continued until the February 20, 2003, meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Mr. Bob Fender Jr. stated that he was speaking on behalf of the petitioner, his father. He continued that they were concerned that the 1990 agreement had not been fulfilled and were trying to confirm that it had been done by their request. He advised that in further discussions it looks as if it may have actually been done back in 1990 and would like the continuance to be sure. Mr. Merritt stated that he thought he remembered some other rezoning request coming before them on this particular property. Mr. Fender stated that the last request was in 1990. Mr. Merritt stated he believed there was another after that year. Mr. Murphy confirmed that the zoning maps show the last request by this subject property was in 1990, nothing since. He stated that he believed there were several other rezoning requests by other surrounding property owners, but nothing on this subject parcel since 1990. Mr. Lounds made a motion to continue the application of Robert Fender for a Change in Future Land Use Classification, deferring public comment, until the February 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, unless it is found to be unnecessary and then the application would be withdrawn prior to that meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and continued until the February 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM 4: ROBERT FENDER FILE NO. RZ-02-022: Agenda Item # 4 was discussed at the same time as Agenda Item # 3. Mr. Murphy stated that an email was received from the White City Improvement Club expressing their concern with regards to the rezoning request. He continued that copies were provided to each of the Planning and Zoning Commission Members, as well as a copy in the project file. Mr. Lounds made a motion to continue the application of Robert Fender for a Change in Zoning, deferring public comment, until the February 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, unless it is found to be unnecessary and then the application would be withdrawn prior to that meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and continued until the February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 5: ATLANTIC TRUSS COMPANY, LTD. FILE NO. RZ-03-001: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of Atlantic Truss Company, LTD., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning District for property located on the East side of North Kings Highway, approximately ¼ mile south of St. Lucie Boulevard. He continued that the purpose of the request was to allow the property to be developed for a truss manufacturing facility. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Merritt asked what the timeframe for widening Kings Highway was. Mr. Murphy explained that the widening would not be occurring anytime soon because they have not even conducted their PD&E study yet. Mr. Lounds questioned if this particular property had been rezoned before. Mr. Flores stated that the subject property had not been previously rezoned, but there was some property to the south that had been. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Richard Sneed stated he was the attorney representing the petitioner, Atlantic Truss Company, Ltd. He continued that the applicants were present and wanted to establish their truss operations in the subject location. Mr. Merritt questioned if the applicant had prepared a site plan yet for their proposed project. Mr. Sneed stated that they did not have one at this time and were currently in the stage of interviewing engineers for that purpose. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant would be required to bring their site plan back before the Planning and Zoning Commission for their proposed project. Mr. Murphy explained that it would not come back before them. including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Atlantic Truss Company, Ltd., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 6: ANGELHEART ACRES FILE NO. CU-02-009: Angelheart Acres, Mr. Dennis Murphy stated that Agenda Item # 6 was the application offor a Conditional Use Permit to allow a community residential home in the RS-4 (Residential, Single- Family 4 du/acre) Zoning District. He explained that on November 5, 2002, the petitioner filed for a Conditional Use Permit in order to expand Angelheart Acres, her family residential (foster) home, which has been in operation for about five years at 171 Caprona Avenue, in River Park. He advised that a Conditional Use Permit is only required if another family residential home is located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The petition was to originally be heard at the December 2002, meeting. He continued that during the review of the application, staff checked county records (both Community Development and Occupational Licenses) and also the records of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). He stated that in those reviews no other family residential home was identified within the 1,000-foot radius, so staff informed the applicant that no Conditional Use Permit would be required and cancelled the hearing. Mr. Murphy stated that subsequent to these actions neighbors of the petitioner identified an apparently unlicensed group home at 111 Caprona Avenue, within the 1,000-foot radius. He advised that DCF had stated that state law prohibits the county from regulating the location of foster homes and provided an Advisory Legal Opinion, which appears to support this position. He continued that the county believes that it can and should regulate these uses. He stated that attorneys for both agencies were still researching these issues at the present time. He stated that staff was recommending this petition be continued until the March 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m., instead of the original request of February 20, 2003, to allow time to resolve all questions. Mr. Merritt made a motion to continue this petition, deferring public comment, until the March 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and continued until the March 20, 2003, Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM 7: ORDINANCE 03-005 PUD REQ / OPEN SPACE STANDARDS: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was to consider Draft Ordinance 03-005 amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by amending the Open Space Standards for Planned Unit Developments, to provide for Clarification of Standards applicable to areas of the unincorporated county with a future land use designation of Agricultural, Residential and Mixed Use and by creating new Paragraph K, Clustering of Development for Planned Unit Developments. He continued that these proposed revisions were intended to address certain unintentional conflicts that exist be effecting non-agricultural activities in the western areas of the County. He also stated that Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2.2 and 1.1.2.3 were originally placed into the Plan as a part of a settlement agreement in 1991 between the State of Florida and St. Lucie County to have the Plan a Unified Land Development Code for the County in 1990, they developed minimum open space standards that were applicable to all Planned Unit Developments. He stated that when these standards were first created, the term common open space was not specifically defined in the He also stated that there were recently some concerns expressed to the County Commission over Unit Developments in the agricultural areas of the community. Mr. Murphy stated that Draft Ordinance 03-005 would maintain the current open space standards and ratios for development in areas of the county with a residential, conservation, special district, and mixed-use future land use areas. He also stated that those areas of the community an agricultural future land use designation, new subparagraph I (2) would establish a minimum open space ratio of 80% of the development site, but it would also permit that the required open space, at the option of the developer, be held either in a common interest or individual interest, subject to deed or easement restrictions that would ensure that it remained as open space in perpetuity. He continued that this is a significant change from the open space standards applied to more urban areas of the community, but it would be consistent with the requirements of Policy 1.1.2.3 Comprehensive Plan, new paragraph K addresses Clustering of Development areas in a Planned Unit Development. Review of several general planning and project design documents indicates a general theme, that being, clustering is considered to be the concentrating of development units or activities in a manner that provides for the highest utilization of the land area under development but with a minimum of new infrastructure development resulting in lower land development costs. There are no specific density standards for the term clustering since this is typically a local policy decision that will vary between communities. Mr. Murphy stated that in order to address this ambiguity in the description of the terms cluster, staff has proposed that in the Residential, Conservation Special District, and Mixed-Use Future Land Use designations no specific minimum standards be set in order to provide for maximum flexibility of product and project design. He also stated that in the agricultural areas, clustering of development is required when any non-agricultural development is proposed that would exceed 4 units/lots. He continued that noting the general description of the term clustering is focused towards a concentration of units for development, it would appear to be somewhat contradictory not to create some locally established maximum parcel sizes in the Agricultural Future Land Use P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 9 designations that encourage the clustering of development. He also stated that they have proposed that in the AG-2.5 Zoning District, the maximum lot size in any clustered development be no more than 1.25 acres and in the AG-5 Zoning District the maximum lot size be no more than 2.5 acres. He advised that lot sizes could be smaller, but the overall project density would not exceed that of the Future Land Use designation for the parcel as a whole. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-005 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman McCurdy questioned that a conservation easement could be considered as part of the common open space. Mr. Murphy explained that a conservation easement is a broadly defined developed in any other manner, urban related. Chairman McCurdy stated he was questioning if there would be a tax break given because of the lack of potential development on that easement. Mr. Murphy stated that the property appraiser would make that decision, but he believed there would be some type of valuation adjustment. public land that is being considered as part of the common open space. Mr. Murphy explained that it could includ McCurdy stated that the way he understands this change all of the benefits and rights of the agricultural use currently would be in force. He continued that the only restrictions would be on future residential development of the area. Mr. Murphy stated that would be correct, with a few exceptions for wetlands and situations like that. Mr. Grande stated that the way he is reading the open space requirements, they could be met with productive lands and individual residents of the cluster could own those lands. He questioned what the actual intent of the change was and where the requested change was coming from. He stated that if they approved the change as requested he felt they would still be out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated that if the changes were approved as they are currently written they would not take us out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grande stated that he felt it would. Mr. Murphy stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not defined within the Land Development Code. He continued that development interests from the west are what originated this request to resolve the conflicts between the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. Mr. Hearn questioned if the easements were in perpetuity. Mr. Murphy stated that usually they were. Mr. Hearn questioned if that land would never be able to be developed. Mr. Murphy explained that would be the case, unless it was released, usually by the consent of the county commission. Mr. Merritt stated that his understanding was that the county commission would be re-addressing this situation within the year and that this would, in his opinion, just be a patch job. Mr. Murphy stated he would not consider it a patch job and that the intent of the ordinance is to address the clarification needed within the existing codes and policies. He continued that after this review a re-evaluation were needed then the Board would direct that. Mr. Trias questioned what the fundamental difference between having private open space counting towards open space and regulating the overall density. Mr. Murphy explained that this ordinance would allow for individual ownership of the lands to count and not getting into a large P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 10 tract owned by a common interest group. Mr. Trias stated that he felt it was a design issue and if there were common open space with some kind of greenbelt along some clearly defined area, this would still be the same number of units and same type of development, as well as sprawl. Mr. feel this would promote sprawl. He continued that Paragraph K attempts to address the portion of the language found in policy 1.1.2.2 that discusses requiring clustering of the developments. He also stated that the term clustering essentially means concentration and development for the purpose of reducing infrastructure and development costs. He advised that the definition of clustering is not defined by specific lot sizes and that Paragraph K is a draft to try and address the rural development issues to concentrate their development activities to certain portions of the parcel. He stated that by concentrating the development activity they have attempted to cap the maximum lot sizes permitted in those areas. He continued that this is the most simplistic way to start to correct the discrepancies and that it is open for suggestions, but until the policy itself is Mr. Jones stated that there is land in the rural community that is an agricultural ranchette type of deve take away the rights of those owners to make them develop their land in this fashion. He also support this. Mr. Murphy stated that this is why they have brought it to them to discuss all of the issues and options and work out any problems that may be brought up. He continued that the problem really is the discrepancies between the root policies of the Comprehensive Plan and this was just the first step to try to rectify that problem. Mr. Jones stated that he cannot see any layout make any sense from a management or maintenance standpoint. Mr. Grande stated that he agreed hese clusters should be out in this type of region. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to hear from members of the public with regards to this ordinance because he is confused about this issue. He questioned what the basic land use densities were out in the agricultural areas. Mr. Murphy explained that the land use categories in the agricultural environment are 1 per 2.5 acres and 1 per 5 acres. Mr. Hearn stated that he would really like to hear what the public thinks about the proposed changes and what would happen if the Commission chose not to act on this ordinance tonight. Chairman McCurdy stated he felt it would be better to get most of their discussion with staff out of the way first and then hear from the public. Mr. Merritt stated that in his discussions with staff the answer would be to send this draft ordinance to the County Commission with a request that they change the land use to allow for this or to cure the open space problems. He continued that the County Commission could then forward the information to DCA and that staff has done as much as they can do to rectify the inconsistencies until something else is on the books. Mr. Hear questioned if someone had a hundred acre parcel, would they only be allowed to place one home on it, based on the new draft ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that under AG-5 land use, a hundred acre parcel would have a residential allocation of twenty units. He continued that how that property can be developed is limited by the Comprehensive Plan policies. He also stated that if the owner wants to divide the property into twenty equal pieces, he could not do that for residential purposes because of the restriction of more than four pieces for residential would P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 11 require a PUD, which would then have the clustering and open space requirements. He advised that in order to get his twenty pieces he would need to concentrate them on one particular portion of the property and somehow satisfy the term clustering. Mr. Hearn questioned if it was the term clustering that was causing so many of the problems. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct, but that open space is also an issue that would have to be dealt with. He also stated that open space in a rural environment as opposed to open space in an urban environment does have a distinction. Mr. Trias questioned about how much of the county is zoned with AG - 2.5 and AG - 5 land uses. Mr. Murphy stated that it was over half of the unincorporated county. Mr. Trias stated that he feels like that there would be a large potential for development and sprawl there. Mr. Merritt stated that he too would like to hear from the public regarding this ordinance because he feels it would raise a lot more questions from the Commission members of staff. Mr. Akins questioned if the example of the hundred-acre parcel was based on the way the current standards are written or based on what the draft ordinance was proposing. Mr. Murphy stated that the example was based on the way the standards are currently written. Mr. Lounds wanted an explanation of the differences between suburban development, urban sprawl, and rural development. Mr. Murphy stated that the differences between suburban and development as being typically found in areas that are some distance from anything resembling an urban environment, large or small. He also stated that suburban development would be that which perimeters an urban environment, large or small, like Lakewood Park or Port St. Lucie. He continued that those explanations would probably vary depending on where within the Country you were reviewing. Mr. Lounds stated that the feeling of those who move out to a more rural atmosphere is that they want to be away from the suburban areas and not have all of those amenities. He continued that the question really is how to accommodate the people who want to Mr. Trias stated that in his work he has had an opportunity to try and define sprawl. He continued that the only useful way to define it was that sprawl was any type of development that did not amount to clearly defined neighborhoods or districts that eventually made up towns. He also stated that anything that was not clearly defined was sprawl. He advised that the problem is once zoning is in place there is no practical way to apply his definition of sprawl. Chairman McCurdy stated that different people desire different things and those who have homes on an acre or more with wells and dirt roads are very happy with that. He continued that not everyone wants to live in a Planned Unit Development with all of the urban amenities and the taxes associated with them. Mr. Grande stated that what this comes down to is when a PUD is done in the Agricultural area, because it is required, we are considering the possibility of allowing that portion of the PUD that to the function of the entire development. He also stated that what they are saying is that now with this change, we can take the land that was set aside and let it be owned by a single owner, who could be either the person who owned the land to start with or the developer who bought the land to develop, or one of the residents of the cluster. He continued that what is ended up with is a great change in the PUD concept that says now the common land can be a separate productive P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 12 like to see those open spaces be common rather than individually owned. Mr. Jones stated that he is all for clustering homes to make the provision of services easier in certain locations. He also stated that those who want to live in that type of environment should have that ability, but the way the county should encourage this would be to allow for an increase in the number of units per acre. He continued that if that happened those types of developments would occur closer to town and the people who wanted to live there would want to have the services. He advised that the way the draft ordinance is currently written makes it seem like farmers are bad people for wanting to live outside of the suburban areas. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jerry James stated that he has lived in the county for many years and has lived on Brocksmith obtaining services or a paved road and that is why he bought out there. He also stated that he has developed ranchettes in the past few years, likes that lifestyle and is concerned that the direction of this new ordinance would try to regulate rural life. He stated that what is proposed in this draft ordinance is inappropriate and unnecessary. He continued that PUD zoning does not belong in rural areas of development, only in urban areas. He advised that he feels clustering is a good tool, but again does not apply to rural areas. He suggested that staff review the affidavit of exemption that is available in Indian River County with regards to the best interest for rural development in agricultural areas that are in financial need. He continued that this is what happens when rules and regulations for urban development are over regulated and misapplied. He stated that the affidavit of exemption allows for 5- associates and common areas. He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan policies are broad policy statements flicting policies, remove them from rural land developments, and adopt an affidavit of exemption. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. James how the Planning and Zoning Department were supposed to get by the requirements of DCA that were agreed to under the 1992 settlement agreement for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated that in this case, the Comprehensive Plan is adopted into the Code of Ordinances and the policies therein do carry the force of the code and the law. the plan were secondary to the code under the eyes of the law would not be the case here because they are both part of the same thing. Mr. James stated that his bottom line is that he is asking the Commission to look at rural development, not with urban short-term task and that this draft ordinance is the first step. encompass the rural, agricultural area, deny this draft ordinance, and try to find a smaller, logical way to cure this problem. Mr. James confirmed that is what he was suggesting because PUD regulations really should not apply to rural development issues. Mr. Trias stated that he agreed with Mr. James that the PUD regulations and other urban tools are being misused in the rural areas. He continued that the root of the problem is how to keep rural areas rural and the urban tools are clearly not appropriate for this type of development. Mr. Hearn stated that he would have a problem with the clustering idea because of the possibility P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 13 of agricultural exemptions and the fact that the Comprehensive Plan encourages ensuring that new development pays for itself. Mr. Murphy stated that the restrictions in Policy 1.1.2.2. would need to be amended to not require a compulsory PUD in the agricultural environment. Mr. Hearn clust want to be clustered with their neighbors. He also stated that having an agricultural exemption on most of that land would not be appropriate either. Mr. Lounds stated that by having a density of 1 unit to 2.5 acres and 1 unit to 5 acres, the density issue is already being controlled in the rural areas. He also stated that, in his understanding, a PUD would be used more inside the urban service area than outside. He continued that the purpose of greenbelt was to protect the agricultural production people from excessive taxes. He advised that he has a problem with the term clustering because he thinks it takes away from the rural spirit, the rural feeling, and makes it an urban type environment. He stated he felt they needed to send a message to the Board of County Commissioners since they are an advisory board to them. Mr. Merritt questioned if Mr. James would favor removing PUD totally from the agricultural zoning. Mr. James stated that in Indian River County they cap the affidavit of exemption at a maximum nineteen five-acre tracts. Mr. Akins stated that he would like to hear more details about the affidavit of exemption since it seems to be working for the same types of situations in Indian River County. Mr. Jones stated that worst instances of sprawl happen when a community St. Lucie County was prepared for the growth that he sees coming and these issues must be addressed in a broader, thought out forum than they could accomplish tonight. Mr. Trias stated that the county needs to have an edge to the development and it must be dealt with now or else everything from here to the Gulf Coast will become developed without any breaks. Mr. Paul Frishkorn stated that he is in complete agreement with Mr. James and that common close to his neighbors and wants to keep that rural setting. He continued that some things do need to be changed and that Mr. James was making suggestions in the right direction. Mr. Jeff Furst stated that he came to St. Lucie County in 1970 and spent twelve years representing the Trust for Public Land. He also stated that the big picture is that if something continued tha now. He advised that he lives in St. Lucie West now and was also on it when it was the Peacock Ranch and in his opinion the Peacock Ranch was better. He stated that there are too many people in too little space out there in St. Lucie West. He continued that there needs to be answer for those people who want to go out and live on ten, twenty, or more acres in a rural setting. He also stated that the agricultural people were here long before the developments and they need to have with the way that it is currently written. He stated that there is nothing wrong with a large development with people owning large tracts because that is what people want to own today. He also stated that it works in the surrounding counties, so it should be able to work in our county. He continued that there would not be any buyers of property if the proposed draft ordinance were adopted because they will just go to other counties. He advised that he agrees with the exemption that is offered in Indian River County and feels that would work in our county too. He also stated P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 14 would be better to not include the agricultural areas in that like Indian River County does. Mr. Hearn stated that he could not see a property owner willing to decrease their density availability. Mr. Furst stated that Indian River County has several different options available. Mr. Hearn advised that he would be interested in reviewing their options in detail. Mr. Merritt out to I-95. Mr. Furst stated that it did not, other than right along the corridor on State Road 60. Mr. Merritt stated that it is very difficult for developers to find large tracts of land in Indian River County now and that they have to buy several sets of 40 or 50 acre tracts in order to have a development. He also stated that neither Indian River nor Martin County preserved any of their beaches. County and is concerned about clustering and the effects it will have on the agricultural lands. He also stated that the small grove owners are not making it anymore and we need to have something to pay for the services. He continued that his son had gotten into a situation where he purchased some land on Matthews Road to split it up into smaller home sites, but cannot split up the lot more than 1 time without having to do a PUD. He suggested that St. Lucie County really should review some of the items suggested tonight for fixing these issues. Mr. Brad Phares stated that he is Co-Chairman of the Environmental and Private Lands Property be to review how other counties within Florida have handled these types of problems and work from their solutions. He also stated that this issue has come up in Alachua and Volusia County and should consider reviewing how they dealt with the same situations. He continued that clustering did not work in Volusia County and that Alachua County is still debating the issue and is in litigation. He advised that there are a lot of legal issues that could arise out of the draft ordinance that is currently being proposed. He stated that the concerns about protecting the rural atmosphere are already being addressed by the recently passed Rural Lands Protection Act and also through Preservation 2000. He continued that the State has provided funding for property owners to preserve their property as they have it now. He also stated that there are monetary incentives available to them for that preservation. He advised that people, who feel the land is sacred, live off the land, love it, and will not submit to development pressures, own a majority of the western county. Mr. Hearn stated that they are examining the existing policies now and they see a need for a change, but want to make sure that the change that is made everyone can live with. He also stated counties as an example of what will definitely work in St. Lucie County because he feels our county is unique compared to theirs. He advised that he wants will regret later on. He stated that if more people from the public were to come out to these meetings and help them make the right decisions they will have an even better county tomorrow. Mr. John Ferrick stated that he was concerned about how this draft ordinance would affect the residential and mixed-use areas because all of the previous discussion has been around the agricultural areas only. Mr. Murphy stated that the first section of paragraph K on page 7 is the only section that could affect the individual residential areas because the rest of the ordinance does not change any policies or codes regarding residential areas, it only focuses on the agricultural areas. He also stated that the real focus of the changes and discussion is with regards to the area of the county that lies west of the Turnpike / I-95 corridor. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Merritt questioned if they could propose a motion that changed the wording of the ordinance and added the possibilities involved with the affidavit of exemption. Ms. Young explained that would change the overall intent of the ordinance and how it was advertised and therefore could not be done. She stated they would have to recommend approval or denial of the ordinance as it is currently written with their suggestions to the Board of County Commissioners regarding considering the affidavit and their other comments. Mr. Merritt questioned if denying the ordinance would cause a problem with the settlement agreement they have regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated that in order to adopt the affidavit of exemption that is used in Indian River County they would need to remove policy 1.1.2.2. from the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jones questioned that if they modified those policies, would that bring the county out of compliance with the agreement of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated that the county would need to provide a valid explanation to DCA as to why those policies would need to be amended, but yet would still keep us in compliance. Mr. Hearn stated that if the two referenced Comprehensive Plan policies were reworded so as not to trigger clustering and PUD processes. Mr. Jones stated that he feels the concept of clustering is a good idea and could have positive effects, but should be something that someone chooses to do with his land, rather than being required to do. Mr. Hearn stated that he would want to make sure that the developer does have that choice rather than make it a requirement. Mr. Jones stated that he would not be able to support anything that is like what is currently included in this proposed draft ordinance. Mr. Grande stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Jones and would support a motion that passes this change along to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial and then ask them to have staff investigate the solution to this problem that has been implemented in Indian River County, as well as other solutions that exist within the state today. He continued that then staff could bring back a new ordinance with a coordinated set of changes, which would include both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. Mr. Merritt stated that he feels the zoning is already in place and that they only need to worry about fixing the language of the zoning to correct the inconsistencies. He also stated that Mr. Jones stated that it would make sense to consider proposing a boundary in the community that begins to limit where urban activity can be developed. He continued that it would provide a good transition between urban, suburban, and completely agricultural areas. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Akins questioned what is being exempted when an affidavit of exemption is filed. He continued that if this exempts the PUD requirements, then that is probably something we should look at to correct our problems. Mr. Murphy stated that the next ordinance on the agenda goes into detail and addresses the specifics of the affidavit of exemption that is available in Indian the same ideas as those approved by Indian River County. Mr. Murphy stated that is absolutely possible, to a point, as they had proposed in the next agenda item, but it cannot supercede the provisions in the Comprehensive Plan that have the limitations on the division of property within the agricultural areas. He continued that the main issue would be amending those previously discussed policies within the Comprehensive Plan and then implement a Land Development Code regulation that would provide for some limitations for development within the agricultural area. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 16 Mr. Hearn stated that he was not sure that they should make a recommendation tonight with regards to this ordinance without having benefit of a special meeting or more time to review and to make one tonight that he would be comfortable with. Mr. Grande stated that he agrees with Mr. Murphy that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be changed and there is a specific process that must be followed in order to do that. He continued that the way to get DCA to approve deletion of the two policies in question is to send the changes to them, with a new proposed ordinance change that will explain some new proposed rural PUD er month and should be decided on by recommending that the Board of County Commissioners deny the ordinance as direct staff themselves to rewrite the ordinance and then bring it back to avoid sending it to the believe it could be done that way because they already have a proposed ordinance before them for their review and recommendation and they need to make a recommendation one way or the other as it is currently written. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt recommending a continuance could shorten the overall process. Mr. Grande made a motion to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny Draft Ordinance 03-005 as inconsistent with the best future development prospects for St. Lucie County. He also recommended that the Board of County Commissioners assign the staff to look at the solutions that are in the neighboring counties where the same process has been handled in the past. Then come forward with a Comprehensive Plan change that eliminates the impediments that exist today and the associated ordinances that will allow us to do planning in the rural areas. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones, with discussion. Mr. Akins stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn that there might be a quicker way to get to the solution. Mr. Hearn advised that he wanted to knock out the step of sending this to the Board of County Commissioners, who would then send it to staff, who would then bring it back to them for to direct staff to spend the additional time and manpower needed to come to a solution and that should be the task of the Board of County Commissioners to direct that. He continued that he guideline to help resolve our own issues. Chairman McCurdy stated that he agreed. Mr. Merritt questioned if they could make the motion to exempt the clustering and PUD portions of the ordinance so they could recommend approval of the rest of the ordinance. Ms. Young explained that would change the intent of the ordinance as it was previously written and advertised to the public and therefore could not be done that way. She explained that they would have to make a recommendation on the ordinance as it was currently written and advertised. She also stated that making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners one way or the other tonight would not change the overall timetable of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process and the ordinance adoption. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Akins voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 17 AGENDA ITEM 8: ORDINANCE 03-006 PLATTING REQUIREMENTS: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director stated that Agenda Item # 8 was to consider Draft Ordinance 03-006 amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by amending Section 11.03.01, Procedure for Platting, Platting Requirements, by creating New Paragraph F for the purpose of providing for exemptions to certain minimum subdivision standards for large lot developments in the Agricultural 2.5 and Agricultural 5 Future Land Use Categories. Mr. Murphy stated that absent of taking an action on the previous agenda item and addressing the Comprehensive Plan issues, this ordinance would not get the desired effect of their previous discussion as it is currently written. He continued that this would not work in the agricultural districts until the Comprehensive Plan policy issues are changed. Staff is therefore recommending denial of Draft Ordinance 03-006. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande made a motion to deny Draft Ordinance 03-006 for the reasons presented by staff. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 18 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be February 20, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Ed Merritt, Chairman P & Z Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 19